Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615848
--- Comment #6 from Paul Flo Williams <paul at frixxon.co.uk> 2010-07-19 10:31:33 EDT ---
Welcome to the wacky world of font metadata. To inject a bit of font
archaeology:
The metadata of the original release was _really_ strange, with some fields in
the name table claiming that this font was Times New Roman version 3.00, and
some claiming that this was BrettFont version 1.00. For the release as part of
FC8, Jon Stanley used 1.0-2 as the nvr.
In May 2008, a new version was uploaded to OFLB, with the most obvious
tell-tales of its hacky origin removed. Unfortunately, the metadata still
claimed this as BrettFont 1.0. In the face of this confusion, Jon started using
the date of release as the version.
I agree with Parag; there isn't likely to be a future release (unless Brett
removes the final few "Monotype" strings from the metadata), so continuing to
treat the internal version as unreliable and going for dates makes sense.
For the record, I'm examining:
sha1sum *.ttf
9fd5585ec2b2c9d9850a5a8e9acd94b0c2d2e9f1 brettalton_-_Brett_Font.ttf
424d6ef6eaa4a71c719b51ae39ef268f6f011418 BrettFont1.1.ttf
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.